The social needs of frail or isolated older people are sometimes aided by referrals to day centres in the United Kingdom. Since the late 1940s, day centres have had a role to play promoting socialisation in later life. Additionally, attendance at day centres is often open ended, with participants only leaving due to moving to a nursing home or dying. In this study, the views of those attending time-limited day centre programmes in seven day centres in Northern Ireland have been sought in relation to their thoughts about the service as well as how they feel when it ends. Seventeen participants completed diaries for the programme duration and/or engaged in an interview process. Participants reflected on the social and educational benefits of attending but also recognised impositions in the centres that impinged upon individual choices and also the length of time they could remain. This study reveals that, in order to maintain socialisation, time-limited programmes must have clear follow-on strategies for participants. Additionally, respondents’ experiences reflect that a paternalistic model of care delivery remains in place that, whilst restrictive, reveals that access to the service is more specialised and not universal. Nevertheless, should day centres wish to remain relevant, it is important that service users are fully consulted about their desires and choices within the setting.

Aims – We wanted to investigate to what extent and in what characteristics the patients cared in the psychiatric residential facilities (RF) were similar to those in the day-centres (DC), and whether 6-month improvements in the two settings were comparable. Methods – We described 141 patients admitted to the RF and 180 in DC of three mental health service networks in Milan and near Milan. They were evaluated again after six months. Results – In both groups, we identified subgroups of more intensive treatment: 45% of those in residential treatment were in high intensity rehabilitation facilities, and those who followed a residential program of >12 hours/week were 53%. The mean duration of treatment in the residential treatment was 40 months (SD 55.7) and in DC 49.6 months (49.3). The two groups differed in the overall scores of the HoNOS, but differences emerged in the subscales relative to daily life activities and living conditions. Among those in RF, about half had a house, versus 99% among those in DC. After six months, clinically significant modifications were small in both groups. Conclusions – Residential patients had more needs than DC patients. It is possible that some of the residential patients might be treated with intensive DC program, but the absence of a home for the majority of residential facilities patients makes this unlikely.

Declaration of Interest: None.

In response to recent community care policies in Britain, co-ordinated, needs-led models of care have been introduced into day care services for older people. Whilst their introduction has prompted detailed consideration of the changes required in the organisation and management of these services, less attention has been paid to their implications for the design of day care premises. Yet design factors impinge on all aspects of service delivery and any shortcomings in design may undermine the effective delivery of new models of care. This article uses findings from recent research to explore how design factors may facilitate or constrain service delivery, focusing on two aspects of the new models of care – that services should meet the needs of individual users and be locally-based.